Stuttaford’s Faintly Bogus Relations
“Dr Raj Persaud, possibly the most widely quoted authority on psychology
since Sigmund Freud, is up for membership of the Reform Club. Among
subscribers to his candidacy so far are fellow members of the punditocracy
Mary Kenny, Jeremy Vine and Michael Buerk. His seconder, in what looks like
an agreeable example of Faintly Bogus Telly Experts sticking together, is Dr
Thomas Stuttaford, the most widely quoted authority on medicine since
Hippoctates.”—from the London Spectator, 4/19/03.
The Perfect Liberal Answer
Democratic consultant Bob Shrum, when asked by CNN’s Tucker Carlson just now why bestiality is wrong, responded by saying that it’s cruel to animals.
No, this bleg is not a joke. There are some pretty outrageous provisions in the supplemental Iraq bill limiting airline CEO compensation. If you know about the industry, or if you’re a Capitol Hill type who knows about the legislative meanderings that created these provisions, I would love to hear from you.
E-Mail (From a Few Days Ago)
Is one of the “perks” of being the editor of national review that you get to
watch matinee Yankee games. I just hit up ESPN.com and saw that the boys in
pinstripes are up 12-1. This team may be better than the 98 team.”
No, but it is one of the ready distractions of being at home trying to write a book. I was on a conference call with Ed Capano and Jonah the other day, from home here where I’m supposed to be slaving away on the book, when I let out in the midst of the conversation, “Wow–Heideki Matsui just got his third hit of the day!” (My girlfriend is getting tired of me saying–”Hideki Matsui may be the Japanese Paul O’Neill.”) As for the Yanks, yes they’re off to a great start, and I’d be gloating more in The Corner if I were so busy here at home watching the YES network….
Sullivan & Santorum, Ctd.
Andrew Sullivan has posted a partial response to my remarks regarding Rick Santorum. Part of his response makes me think that I was insufficiently clear earlier. To clarify a few points: 1) Sullivan asserted that Santorum wanted to see sodomy laws enforced. I said that there was no evidence for that contention. I wasn’t saying that it’s okay not to enforce laws on the books. 2) Nor did I comment on whether Santorum was right to deny the existence of a moral principle of sexual freedom on which governments may not transgress. I have not arrived at a solid conclusion on this subject, frankly, but I am inclined to think that any such right to sexual freedom cannot be absolute. I don’t think it is unjust for governments to ban prostitution or consensual adult incest, for example, and I would think that most opponents of anti-sodomy laws would want to rest their argument on a principle that would not imply that it is unjust. 3) I would respond to Sullivan’s charge that I contradicted myself in my earlier remarks, but I don’t understand what the alleged contradiction is. I do not “concede” that Santorum supports laws against sodomy; I assert it, I proclaim it, I shout it from the rooftops.
Sullivan also says that I, along with other conservatives who oppose sodomy laws, am at fault for not writing against those laws “except deep in a defense of someone” like Santorum. I think Sullivan has a good point here. All I can say in my defense is that it does seem to me that the facts that these laws are going away and are rarely enforced really do mitigate the urgency of arguing against them. But I recognize that that’s not a very good defense.
Finally, Sullivan expresses his disgust with the views he attributes to a hypothetical “genteel conservative.” Those views are certainly not my own (and I doubt that they are the views of many conservatives).